Categories

Categories

Advertisements

Welcome to The Curmudgeon’s lair

Welcome to my curmudgeondom. As you’ll soon learn, your reactions to my missives here are likely to range from fear to loathing to tears to outright rage—and I just might even evoke from you an occasional sober nod or two.

If you see a posting you like and wish to share it with others, by all means feel free to do so. I'd prefer that you send the link to your friends, but you're also welcome to reproduce anything here—as long as you retain my identity on the document. If you have a web site of your own and wish to post a link to this blog (or to a specific post), again, feel free to do so.

The purpose of this blog is simple: to provide me a vehicle for sounding-off on whatever topic suits me at the moment. While there’s sure to be no shortage of politically-oriented palaver here, it is by no means all (nor necessarily even most) of what will be proffered to your discerning mind. You’ll also find that my personal politics, ethics, morals, and standards are pretty much “all over the map” (according to my mother-in-law)—so, don’t be surprised to see rants regarding, say, the interference of churches in politics, politically-correct anything, “nanny” laws, taxes, the United Nations, Congress, the Commissioner of Baseball, the State of Ohio’s speed limits, steroids, Jesse Jackson, the “mainstream” media, ultra-liberals, ultra-conservatives, the price of cigarettes, Obamarxism, regulating sales of alcohol, gasoline price manipulation, Muslim foot baths, illegal immigration, laws banning the sale of adult sex toys, cell phones, heavy-handed cops, meddlesome politicians, Hillary, Billary, our all-but-self-proclaimed uncrowned Queen Nancy, “W”, eminent domain, freedom of speech, and the designated hitter all in succession. It is, as I said, my curmudgeondom — and I have the credentials and bona fides to lay claim to the title of The Curmudgeon. So, there.

Some of the postings you'll encounter may seem familiar—especially to those who know me personally. By way of explanation… I once had an ongoing relationship with a local newspaper, and had a number of published opinion pieces—some of which may be posted here. My arrangement was for a feature entitled An Opposing View; given that the editorial staff had a generally liberal, left-of-center view, it stands to reason that my "opposing" view would generally be perceived as coming from the right (in more ways than one, in my own humble opinion). These posts will be annotated as having been previously published.

Comments, of course, are always welcome. You may agree or disagree with me. Doesn’t matter. Of course, I reserve the right to completely ignore you — but, feel free to let your feelings be known, anyway. And if you don't want to comment directly here, my e-mail address is: jimseeber@gmail.com .

Oh, and…yes, I can spell. That "Write-wing" is only a play on words. So, there. Again.

Archive for the ‘Pelosi’ Category

In the aftermath of the drubbing Democrats received in the midterm election, their leaders’ reactions evoked expressions from an incredulous electorate ranging from disbelief to disgust—with a large helping thrown-in of the same fury voters just expressed overwhelmingly with their ballots.

“He just doesn’t get it” seems the most common retort to Barack Obama’s assessment that voters had somehow managed to misunderstand his intentions. Widespread response to (soon-to-be former) Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s defense of her role in ramming through the very policies and legislative efforts that ultimately resulted in the Democrats’ being ousted from scores of posts across the nation has alternated between guffaws and a lot of swearing (though we’ve noted that would-be Queen Nancy has suddenly acquired a taste for bipartisanship—now that her party has been emphatically relegated to the back seat).

“Shove it down our throats now, and we’ll shove it up your (picture of an ass—the equine variety) in 2010” was a common warning during the epic arm-twisting that was Obama’s push for his brand of health care. Democrats ignored the warning. Some even ridiculed it (recall Pelosi’s snarky dismissal as “Astroturf” the grassroots uprising that was born). They laughed.

They’re not laughing anymore.

The prospect of forty-years’ dominance of government by Democrats confidently predicted by strategist James Carville after the 2008 election has been obliterated. The seemingly invincible Obama juggernaut is staggering, stunned by a thunderous right cross that few other than the most optimistic Republican pundits forecast. Even now, wary Democrats (particularly in the Senate—where twenty of their members are up for re-election in 2012) are very carefully charting their courses for the anticipated onslaught of what they see as hordes of Republican visigoths intent on dismantling as much of the preceding two years of Democratic rule as they possibly can. And Obama himself is damaged—perhaps beyond repair—with his aura of invincibility shattered and his once-powerful coterie of congressional supporters joining the voters in jumping ship.

Even fellow Democrats have joined the chorus of criticism, with failed Florida gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink appearing to encapsulate the problem. She paints a picture of an Obama regime that completely disregards what it’s told, intent on its own agenda. In particular, she pointed out the badly-handled Gulf cleanup effort wherein the administration turned a deaf ear to state and local officials. Sink was also especially critical of the White House for refusing to acknowledge public resistance to the health care “reform” with which Obama seems uniquely obsessed.

And against this backdrop the Democrats’ standard bearer can muster no better response than to say that we all misunderstood him. One might infer that he’s saying it’s all our fault for being too stupid to appreciate the genius behind his concepts—much as Bill Press said. (Way to win ’em over, Bill.)

Right.

To the contrary…we got the message—loud and clear. We repeatedly replied—loud and clear.

Obama and his minions heard us—loud and clear.

And they summarily dismissed us.

They’re not tone-deaf, at all. They simply don’t give a damn what we think or what we want. They know what’s good for us—and they’re hell-bent on forcing it upon us.

Obama maintains that he merely has to re-package his message. That’s all. (Is he telling us that—or still trying to convince himself?)

Ri-iiiiight.

Obama’s real problem is that he seems to have believed as Gospel the flowery praise heaped upon him by the mainstream media. It should not be forgotten that he got elected more on charisma and voter discontent than on substance. He has never demonstrated political brinkmanship; he’s never had to, owing to the huge numerical advantage he had in Congress—which he wielded as artfully as a cudgel.

And now he’s going to stick with a proven loser, no longer in a position to twist arms with impunity, pinning his hopes yet again on ideas that voters just overwhelmingly rejected.

Shortly after his inauguration, Barack Obama fired-off a few terse comments at Republicans: “Elections have consequences”…”That’s why we have elections”…and (my personal favorite) “I won.”

Having thus spake, he made clear far in advance that he now knows what to expect in the wake of yesterday’s election debacle.

As Joe Biden might put it: This is a big f– – – – – g deal.

Not as big as Republicans (and sensible voters everywhere) had hoped for—but still big. Very big.

The message sent to the Obama regime (sent—but not likely to be well-received) was clear: We ain’t happy—and you’re to blame. It was a repudiation of Obama’s agenda, with scores of Democrat whipping-boys bearing the brunt of the voters’ wrath. The numbers clearly show voter disapproval of ObamaCare and cap-and-trade. Had the Democrats been pushing weak candidates, the message might’ve been less concise; however, many longtime incumbent Democrats were sent packing—and those who backed Obama’s unpopular policies fared the worst. Obama himself suddenly seems about as embraceable as plutonium, and survival-minded Democrats appear to have been prescient in distancing themselves from him during the weeks preceding the election. Indeed, Obama’s intense campaigning seems to have been ineffective (if not harmful) in most key races; those nine trips he took to Ohio attempting to bolster relatively popular Governor Ted Strickland, for example, became instead an embarrassment as John Kasich won a close contest that many see as a bellwether.

That’s gotta hurt.

Nor could this be seen as merely a reactionary “throw the incumbents out” election, as incumbent Republicans in fact enjoyed widespread success. Moreover, Republicans fared well in contests for open seats both in Congress and in a record number of gubernatorial contests. Those two indicators pretty well establish this as more of a “throw the Democrats out” election.

Where does this leave us?

Well, the Republicans captured solid control of the House of Representatives, and the Democrats’ hold on the Senate is now tenuous. The Democrats’ majority is a slim one, and there’s much doubt as to how many of their “majority” will toe the party line; in particular, their most high-profile victor of this election — Joe Manchin of West Virginia — is seen by many as more of a Republican than many Republicans are, having already denounced both ObamaCare and cap-and-trade. Moreover, Democrats in both houses who survived the massacre are now faced with re-assessing their own stands on key issues—making Congressional support of Obama’s agenda somewhat less than reliable. (With twenty Senate Democrats and only ten Republicans up for re-election in 2012, the message delivered via this 2010 election will reverberate for a long time; having had a glimpse of what may be in store for them in two years, who’s likely to drink the Obama Kool-Aid with such a likely fate awaiting?)

The Tea Party contingent played a role (much to the consternation of the Democrat leadership), but it was a mixed message. Some Tea Party-backed candidates (most notably Senator-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky) ran well, but losses by their highly-publicized candidates in Delaware (Michelle O’Donnell) and Nevada (Sharron Angle) in races that many felt should have been easy pick-ups by Republicans helped Democrats retain Senate control. (Still, it’s pleasant to visualize soon-to-be former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi choking on Astroturf.) It’s clear that Republicans need to take seriously their input, and make adjustments to party stances accordingly. The newly-elected Tea Partiers are likely to exert pressure to control spending and taxes—and the Republican leadership would be well-advised to listen.

The runaway spending has to stop. Period. If no other message came across from this election, that one has to.

The Democrats’ ever-expanding dream of an ever-expanding government must also be reined-in. The people are beyond simply being wary of government intrusion into business, finance, medicine, and (especially) into our everyday private lives.

In short: Less government is better government.

True to form, Democrats are already murmuring about the coming gerrymandering (you know: the gerrymandering that they had planned to control—but that control was largely lost with the ascension of all those Republican governors) of district lines, proving once again that they can get in that first punch ahead of Republicans with disturbing consistency. (One can only hope that Republicans will eventually learn. “Get there firstest with the mostest,” counseled Nathan Bedford Forrest—a lesson Democrats long ago embraced.) With the imminent re-apportioning of congressional seats and the inevitable re-drawing of district lines, GOP governors will be able to influence the political landscape for years to come.

And what of our favorite flagellant—the manchild-in-chief? Will he take this to heart and mend his ways?

Don’t count on it. It’s far more likely that he’ll “double down” (in the current parlance) and merely adjust the means by which he tries to force-feed us his agenda. For now, anyway. It’s doubtful that his prodigious ego will allow him to do otherwise. If Republicans have learned nothing else since the 2008 election, they should’ve at least concluded that the only way to do business with Obama is from a position of strength. They’ll have to ram their agenda down his throat—just as he has force-fed us all since his ascendancy to the White House. He’ll never play ball unless there’s a gun placed to his head.

Recent months have proved very encouraging for Republicans, tea-partiers, conservatives in general, and everyone else who regards the Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate with a level of disdain ordinarily reserved for toenail fungus. Poll results for the Obama regime have been in virtual free-fall, Pelosi is widely viewed as the long-lost twin sister of the Wicked Witch of the West, and opinions are split as to whether Reid should be medicated and escorted to a padded cell or merely voted out to pasture. Indeed, congressional Democrats in general are scurrying for cover with a vigor more commonly observed in cockroaches caught out in the open when the lights are turned on, distancing themselves from their standard-bearer and onetime champion as they frantically seek to preserve careers seemingly doomed by their association with their dear leader.

Not surprisingly, conservative pundits are having a field day, trumpeting daily poll results and confidently predicting a resounding defeat for Democrats in the upcoming mid-term election. They’ve been positively giddy, smugly delighting in the Democrats’ apparent distress, speculating on whether control of one or both houses of Congress will change hands, and even boldly formulating their post-election agenda. Indeed, the GOP euphoria has soared to such a level that prominent commentators seem nearly at a loss for ideas on what to do next.

I have a suggestion for them: Shut the hell up. Now—before you screw everything up.

The grandstanding, chest-beating, and overconfidence are having an undesired effect: They’re now serving to energize the Democrats’ base.

Republican operatives should take particular note of the more subtle indications emerging from those polls. As predicted here months ago, the shake-up in the power structure that seems imminent is not the result of voters falling madly in love with the GOP. Don’t forget that they voted Republicans out not so long ago. As is often the case, this is less a matter of people voting for a party’s agenda and more a matter of voting against another party’s agenda. It’s not that everyone suddenly embraced the philosophy of the Republicans; rather, they’re now at least as disgusted with Democrats—and apparently even more so (for the moment, anyway; voters, however, are notoriously fickle).

If Republicans learned nothing else from political developments of the past several years, at least two clear messages should have sunk in: First, that the strategy they adopted back when they last had control of the government (and lost it) is a proven loser, and second, that the framing of the message is sometimes as important as the message itself. Pundits, power brokers, and voters alike have expressed outright revulsion over the arrogance shown by Democrats—and especially by Obama; for Republicans to now bombard everyone with essentially the same appearance borders on plain stupidity.

Yes, the Democrats have shown a remarkable talent for shooting themselves in the foot. Yes, Obama’s silver tongue seems to have turned to clay (thanks, Jim Croce, for that line). Yes, predictions of the disastrous effects of the Democrats’ actions now appear to have been correct. Yes, the poll numbers have been encouraging.

However…

The single most important variable at the moment is the question of how many people will actually get off their butts and vote this time around. Indications there have been favorable for the much-motivated Republicans, with apathy and complacency among Democrats and uncommitted independents boding well—but, if Republicans aren’t careful at this point, they’ll succeed only in talking their way right out of what seems an almost-certain victory. Would-be Republican voters may note this viewing of the election outcome as a foregone conclusion and not bother to vote, thinking it’s already in the bag. It should also be noted that the grandiose claims of Republican leaders have been seized upon by Democrats, and they’re using that ammunition to whip-up support. (For those who hadn’t noticed…many key Congressional and gubernatorial races have suddenly tightened within the past few days.)

Stop obsessing over polls; the only one that counts is the last one. The rest should be viewed as nothing more than indicators of where support should be bolstered.

Remember that no chickens have yet hatched; you guys haven’t actually won anything. Not yet. Stop acting like the boss—at least, until you actually become the boss.

In 1955, Cyril Northcote Parkinson first advanced a concept which eventually became known as “Parkinson’s Law.” Though it’s undergone some revisions and refinements (and led to a number of corollaries), its basic premise remains: Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.

For example, imagine a worker performing a routine task normally requiring sixteen man-hours (nominally, two business days) to complete. Now, imagine that some genius efficiency expert determines that forty hours (one work week) should actually be alloted for this task. According to Parkinson’s maxim, over a period of time our worker will adjust his routine to expend all forty hours alloted for the task—though he’d previously accomplished the same task on numerous occasions within the constraints of the old standard of sixteen hours. (It could also be argued that for a unionized operation there would be an additional demand for overtime—but, that’s fodder for a different rant.)

One popular corollary of this basic premise will sound familiar to most readers: Data expands to fill the space available for storage (i.e., go ahead and buy that humongous hard drive that makes your current drive look puny by comparison—but, you’re still gonna fill it up).

Another corollary is attributed to Parkinson, himself, and is sometimes referred to as “Parkinson’s Second Law”: Expenditures rise to meet income.

Based upon that assertion, one might reasonably deduce that the esteemed Mr. Parkinson must have at some point studied the spending habits of Democrats.

One might also be inclined to pose a hybrid corollary: Congress increases spending to consume whatever money is available—and even spends money that ain’t there.

Most budgets (whether business, military, or household) are intended to establish limits—not goals to attain. Employees are — from the top down — generally encouraged to find ways to reduce spending. Bringing in a project “under budget” is regarded favorably, as doing so makes available previously committed funds to be applied to other projects; should an overly-generous authorization be encountered, it’s not considered acceptable to spend more lavishly in an effort to insure that all alloted funds are exhausted. Exceeding the budget isn’t allowed; when one runs out of alloted funds, there simply isn’t any more money to spend. Work stops. The household has to wait until next month to buy that new television. The Army parks its tanks, trucks, and helicopters because there’s no money to purchase fuel. Plants close. Employees are furloughed.

Conversely, consider recent comments made by Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) to a gathering of his constituents:

“If there’s one thing I’ve learned up here, and I didn’t really need to come up here to learn it, is the only way to get Congress to balance the budget is to give them no choice. The only way to keep them out of the cookie jar is to give them no choice. Which is why, whether its balanced budget acts or pay as you go legislation or any of that—it’s the only thing.” (And now for the best part—with emphasis added…) “If you don’t tie our hands, we’ll keep stealing.”

One scarcely knows whether to be aghast at Perriello’s unexpectedly frank admission or curiously relieved by the refreshing honesty of it; at any rate, it at least confirmed what many already believed. (We’ve been known to sing the praises of an honest crook from time to time.)

Of course, Mr. Perriello overlooks recent history. Obama himself (after racking-up trillions in debt) exhorted Congress to adopt “paygo” to ensure that future expenditures would be deficit-neutral. Congressional Democrats enthusiastically(?) accepted the challenge and shepherded the legislation to passage.

…then began side-stepping their own brand spanking-new rule less than a week later.

More recently, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) cut short Congress’ summer recess, summoning members back to Washington to pass new bail-out legislation, tweeting that “I will be calling the House back into session early next week to save teachers’ jobs and help seniors & children.” (more on that in a moment) The price tag? More than $26 billion added to the staggering deficit (forget actually paying for the measure; all this spending merely adds to the mounting debt—for which there are no funds). Actually, the measure as written assigns the tax debt to U.S. firms operating in overseas markets; however, if these firms respond by simply not shifting funds back home to be taxed, the burden for the resulting shortfall (added to the potential loss of $120 billion in profits that might also be kept overseas) would be transferred to…us.

The latest? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (you know; the federally-financed lenders on which Congress just spent billions upon billions of bail-out dollars it doesn’t have) just crawled back out of the woodwork, hats in hand, to beg for another $3 billion in federal alms. (Don’t breathe a sigh of relief, just yet; this latest request is merely intended to cover the shortfall for the current fiscal quarter. Stay tuned.)

Oh, and (in case it escaped anyone’s attention) there was yet another report released a few days ago showing that the massive “stimulus” package last year had been squandered in large measure on such boondoggles as:

$762,000 to create interactive choreography programs at the University of North Carolina

$296,000 for a study of dog domestication at Cornell University

$2,000,000 to send researchers from the California Academy of Sciences to islands in the Indian Ocean to study exotic ants

$500,000 for new windows at the Mt. St. Helens visitors center in Amboy, Washington. (The building has been closed since 2007 and there are no immediate plans to reopen it.)

$89,000 to replace sidewalks in Boynton, Oklahoma (The “old” sidewalks had been built only five years before. Moreover, one of them goes nowhere near any houses or businesses and leads directly into a ditch.)

$1,200,000 to create a museum in an abandoned train station in Glasboro, NJ

It should be noted that it’s unclear whether this “stimulus” package — intended to create jobs — actually created more than a relative handful.

How does this happen?

No great mystery. Remember the health care reform package? Remember how scandalized we all were to learn that virtually no one in Congress had read it prior to voting on it? It was 1,017 pages long.

This year’s federal budget is 2,450 pages long; how many people do you think have read all of that one? Or last year’s? Or the year before?

Pork-barrel projects are generally concealed very carefully within such spending measures; it’s sometimes nearly impossible to figure out who inserted specific expenditures (if anyone even notices them). In many cases, it’s a matter of “you vote for mine, and I’ll vote for yours.”

And we give these clowns the key to the treasury. Which probably explains why it’s currently empty.

This bail-out is superficially intended to help debt-ridden states (those that refused to rein-in spending…California and New York, for example—blue states, it should be noted) to balance their budgets. The fix will be temporary, as these states have yet to make the necessary cuts in expenditures to ensure long-term viability (last year’s $862 billion “stimulus” package included $145 billion to balance state budgets—and it obviously didn’t last very long). So, Congress will now be voting to decide whether the states that practiced fiscal responsibility are ultimately going to be taxed to bail-out those that refused to.

But, wait; there’s more (R.I.P., Billy Mays). Consider these figures compiled by Americans for Limited Government in a recent newsletter:

Out of the estimated 3.3 million public school teachers nationwide, teachers’ unions were expecting about 160,000 layoffs this year—roughly 4.8 percent of all teachers. Slightly more than 38 percent of those expected layoffs are centered in just three states: 9,000 in New Jersey, 16,000 in New York and 36,000 in California.

About 57 percent of those 160,000 teachers are unionized, with contributions to state and local unions averaging $300 per teacher. Add another $162 per teacher to the National Education Association and $190 per teacher to the American Federation of Teachers (as reported by Education Next), and Congress will in effect be voting to pump no less than $40 million(emphasis mine)into the political coffers of teachers’ unions.*

Quickly, now; which party do you think will be the beneficiary of union contributions?

In other words: If you’re a Republican in a state that has a balanced budget, you can expect to be taxed not only to pay for wasteful spending in California and New York, but also to contribute indirectly to Democrats’ campaign funds.

Not that Queen Nancy (from California—just in case you’ve forgotten) has such thoughts in her mind. She just wants to help teachers and old folks and children. Oh, and cops and firefighters (again, widely unionized). Just ask her.

Just don’t ask her exactly what’s in the measure, nor what it’s actually intended to achieve. (Remember that she once said that Congress “has to pass the legislation in order for you to find out what’s in it.”)

Her mission is, at best, to spend more and more money that we don’t have.

Once again, Parkinson is proven a sage.

So is Congressman Perriello.

Somebody tie Washington’s hands—quickly.

UPDATE: The $26 billion in spending has been approved by Congress and awaits Obama’s signature.

Irony, on the other hand, is delicious any time—and we should take time to thank those in Washington who keep us well-fed.

Take, for example, the latest nominee for the Supreme Court. Serving-up Elena Kagan as his latest hors d’œuvre, Barack Obama has once again replenished the buffet.

In a somewhat questionable move, Obama purposefully sought-out a candidate with no judicial background. While this approach is not in and of itself without precedent (nor logic), it does invite some skepticism—particularly with the memory still fresh of George W. Bush’s ill-fated nomination of Harriet Miers.

Naturally, Kagan’s supporters hastily moved to discount comparisons to Miers—with some validity. While there are similarities between the two candidates, there are also some differences; yet to be determined, of course, is the extent that one may be distinguished from the other.

The salient issue accompanying the nomination of any non-judge is the lack of a “paper trail”—a history of rulings, decisions, and opinions by which a nominee’s legal and judicial philosophy might be revealed. While neither Miers or Kagan ever served as a judge, Kagan’s career has differed in being essentially confined to politics and academia (notwithstanding a short-lived foray into private practice about which we know nothing)—and her supporters would have us believe that there exist sufficient intellectual and academic works to shed light on her views.

Now, at this point, it should be noted that Kagan will almost certainly be confirmed. It’s a matter of simple arithmetic; Democrats hold more seats than do Republicans, and there doesn’t appear to be any enthusiasm for a filibuster. Absent a gaffe of historic proportions, she’ll get the job.

…and at this point, a question is posed to the reader: Upon seeing the title of this piece, what did you think it’d be about?

You might have wondered: Is she or isn’t she what? A liberal? A conservative? A socialist?

Or you might have mused: Is she or isn’t she what? A lesbian?

You might even have wondered: Is she or isn’t she what? An activist eager to “legislate from the bench?”

And so we arrive at one of two points this piece is intended to advance: We know virtually nothing about this woman. And the long history of academic works alluded to by her supporters? Well, it simply isn’t there. Indeed, after leaving a previous post in the Clinton administration, she was denied re-entry to her tenured position at the University of Chicago owing to the paucity of her works—and her original tenure was bestowed despite objections that she simply hadn’t published enough, even then. She is a tangled collection of contradictions and blank pages—and little else.

In many ways, Kagan serves as the perfect symbol for the Obama regime itself. Like Kagan, we didn’t know a whole lot about Obama, either—until he got elected. Prior to taking up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he kept himself shrouded in secrecy (in truth, he still does). The strategy is clear—and likely to be adopted by others with designs on high office: reveal as little as is absolutely necessary about yourself, lest that knowledge be used against you. (It’s difficult to assail a record that is essentially non-existent.)

The obvious drawback to nominating a candidate with such a blank slate is that it arouses suspicion—particularly when that appointment is made by a White House with the track record that Obama’s has, with its rogue’s gallery of tax cheats, socialists, incompetents, and thugs named to key posts.

For her own part, Kagan seems to be acting in concert with the White House to preserve that veil of secrecy. (The White House released a video of an “interview” that seems to have answered nothing and fooled no one—not even the mainstream media upon which Obama depends so heavily. Does the term “propaganda” come to mind?)

Even Kagan’s supporters have trouble grappling with her true leanings—regardless of the issue. Liberals complain that she’s too conservative (big surprise, there), while conservatives point out her apparent hostility toward the military and embracing of homosexual-rights issues as evidence of her liberal stance. Her advice to then-President Bill Clinton to not endorse late-term abortions is cited as evidence of her relative conservatism. How naive. She made that recommendation only to preserve a political compromise; failure to have done so would’ve risked that compromise being supplanted by a much more conservative (and likely veto-proof) measure being forced by Republicans in Congress. That she eventually allowed military recruiters back on campus at Harvard (she herself ejected them, citing the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy) is offered in response to accusations that she’s hostile toward the armed forces; this claim ignores the fact that she “let” them come back only after being forced to do so by a Supreme Court decision—and that she encouraged student protests even while she was opening the doors to the recruiters.

And now to return to my favorite point of this missive: that delicious irony.

Consider, for example, the quandary facing (or that should be facing) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who loudly lamented the lack of a paper trail for Harriet Miers (read: There’s no record to attack.) . Kagan’s tabula rasa, on the other hand, he finds much less disturbing. Go figure.

More irony: Concealing so much about Kagan in an effort to preempt criticism actually led to more criticism as people filled in the blanks.

Think about Obama’s position. He’s being assailed by his leftist supporters for not being liberal enough (as if ); at the same time, conservatives are unlikely to embrace anyone liberal enough to suit him. True to form, then, he seeks out someone he thinks will be liberal enough to meet his standards and mollify the left, but about whom no one really knows anything for certain—fueling further speculation from the right. And this speculation cannot be decisively addressed for want of the very paper trail that Obama sought to avoid in the first place (Oh, what a tangled web we weave…).

With apologies to masculine-appearing women everywhere, one cannot help but wonder about Kagan; sorry, but this broad reminds one of a knock-down version of Rosie O’Donnell—or perhaps leads one to believe that the Washington Redskins have lost track of one of their linebackers. Not surprisingly, it was soon revealed that there have long been rumors that she’s a lesbian. The White House quickly issued a denial—but it hasn’t gone unnoticed that there now seems to be a mission underway to make her appear more feminine. And as if by magic, friends of Kagan began cropping-up in the press to also deny those rumors.

…which led to yet another ironic predicament for Obamazoids.

Equally magical was the universal realization that issuing strong denials in an effort to buttress support for Kagan risked alienating the homosexual community—overwhelmingly liberal, Democrat, and pro-Obama. What ensued strongly resembled an old episode of Seinfeld, as those strong denials suddenly became strong denials immediately followed by a qualifier: “No, she’s not a lesbian. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. If it were true. Which it isn’t.”

Sadly, while this unfolding drama provides grand political theater, it’d be easy to overlook Kagan’s potential influence over future Supreme Court decisions; given her relative youth, it’s not unreasonable to anticipate her hanging-on for thirty years or more. Therefore, it would seem to be of heightened importance that she be thoroughly vetted in her confirmation process—a practice she herself once advocated in one of her few published works; unfortunately, preliminary suggestions indicate that her reception in the Senate will more likely involve velvet gloves than boxing gloves. (It should be noted also that during her own confirmation hearing for her current post of Solicitor General, she seemed much less enthusiastic about such an approach. Surprised?) Again, barring a major faux pas like stumbling over her strap-on while entering the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, she’s a virtual lock.

And we know practically nothing about her.

To paraphrase Pelosi’s asinine health care takeover argument (“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it…”), it appears that Kagan will be confirmed with little more than perfunctory examination—and then we find out what we’re getting.

Yet another mysterious pig in a poke foisted upon us by the Obama regime.

For those who might’ve slept through the event, the Obama regime announced Saturday the recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. (It seems that less-than-popular news is quietly released on Saturday mornings—when it’s presumed that no one’s paying much attention; remember Van Jones?)

Ever on the alert for opportunities to refine the nation’s thinking, Democrats seized on the opportunity to branch out; correcting our poor math skills seems to be their new mission—though not to the exclusion of politics-as-usual relativism.

To refresh readers’ memories…

Relieved at having managed to scrounge-up a sole Republican vote (though it required a lavish bribe—and they subsequently lost it, anyway) when the House initially passed its health care reform package, Democrats smugly pronounced it a “bipartisan” effort. (Note that Democrats at the time considered one (1) vote by the opposition to constitute “bipartisanship”; this is a crucial bit of information.)

Conversely, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) last week blamed the failure to gain Senate confirmation for Craig Becker on “obstructionist” Republicans; similarly, Obama decried the “partisan politics” that forced him to use the back-door approach of recess appointment. Both Reid and Obama neglected to mention that Becker’s nomination was blocked by a similar bipartisan effort; indeed, two (2) Senate Democrats joined Republicans in opposing Becker. (Pop quiz for the New Democrat Math: When is one (1) vote out of 228 House Republicans more “bipartisan” than two (2) votes out of 59 Senate Democrats?)

It should be noted that Obama didn’t seem to consider himself to be of the obstructionist persuasion when he assisted in blocking the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations; he did, however, assert that Bolton had to be considered “damaged goods” for having gone on to the U.N. via recess appointment by then-President George W. Bush.

Clearly, he doesn’t consider his own recess appointments to be likewise tainted—and both “bipartisanship” and “obstructionism” similarly come fully-equipped with sliding scales.

Recess appointments are nothing new. Given their controversial natures, both Bolton’s and Becker’s appointments were widely predicted. Any President is well within the bounds of law in making such appointments; it’s implicit, though, that such a tactic will draw criticism—especially from the opposing party.

Nor is there anything new about obstructionist tactics, filibusters, and the rest of the same old, same old: politics as usual. One man’s guardian of the law standing in the breach is another’s obstructionist; it’s all a matter of perspective. It’s all relative.

The big difference? This all centers around a President who vowed to change how Washington does business. It involves a Speaker of the House who vowed to “drain the swamp” and bring a higher level of ethics and accountability to government. Since the Obama regime’s rise to power, the promised “transparency” has taken on the appearance and consistency of granite. And as for listening to the will of the people—

Political junkies, commentators, and bloggers everywhere are wallowing in an orgiastic embarrassment of riches—thanks in no small measure to the tireless efforts of the triumvirate of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. Writer’s block became a thing of the past the moment this bunch came to power; with such fertile ground, who could ever be at a loss for ideas?

Consider Pelosi’s latest gem, referring to health care reform: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it away from the fog of controversy.”

Hunh?

Throughout the health care reform saga, we’ve basically been told: “Trust me.” Somewhere in those roughly five thousand pages (between the House and the Senate versions, collectively) of esoteric legislative proposals, we’re supposed to eventually find the justification for all the arm-twisting, political payoffs, sweetheart deals, and secret planning sessions; if one accepts Pelosi’s premise (by the way…there’s a bridge in Brooklyn that may be of interest), she’s on some holy quest to bring this masterpiece to the masses—that they may someday be able to comprehend it and appreciate its beauty…much like all that modern art that we’re all too unsophisticated to grasp (you know; the stuff that looks like it was painted by a heavily medicated pre-schooler). Why, it’s such a wonderful plan that all three members of the aforementioned triumvirate (and all of Congress) expressly exempted themselves from it so that we wouldn’t have to share it with them. How generous and altruistic of them. And knowing that we’re all too stupid to know a good thing when we see it, they’re trying earnestly to spare us the anguish of determining whether to buy a pig in a poke by deciding the matter for us—requiring only that we be left holding the bag.

Reid? Oh, so much potential, there. The one guy in Washington who out-Bidens even Joe Biden with his ill-considered outbursts. One must wonder whether he was given a pass for his infamous “Negro dialect” comment about Obama less for his past record and more because even his associates and supporters know he’s an idiot. When he speaks, the result is most often one of two reactions: viewers must resist mightily the temptation to throw something at the TV—or simply scratch their heads in wonderment.

Obama, of course, surrounds himself with casts of characters that never fail to provide fodder; it’s unclear, however, to what degree their antics are attributable to Obama, himself.

Though (now) former congressman Eric Massa’s bizarre allegations about Rahm Emanuel accosting him in the shower have been pretty much discredited,—…well, it is Rahm Emanuel, after all; there isn’t much that seems over-the-top for him. Congressman Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania claims that the Obama gang (again, it’s unclear which of the miscreants was actually responsible) tried to bribe him with the promise of a job in an attempt to discourage him from opposing Senator Arlen Specter’s re-election bid; while the administration has issued denials, Obama’s track record of buying-off his opponents leads one to wonder. And it’s been fun watching Robert Gibbs hem and haw about the matter during press briefings. Attorney General Eric Holder raised quite a stir with his(?) decision to have the 9/11 trials held in New York City; it seems now that Obama may be leaning toward holding the trials elsewhere—which raises the possibility that the original trial announcement was actually a trial balloon to test the political wind, allowing Obama to transfer the heat to others (at least he didn’t try to employ his favored “Blame Bush” strategy).

And the Head Beagle, Himself? Obama provides virtually unlimited material. From his insistence on making a daily television appearance to his obsession with secrecy to his artful dodging of firm stances on issues, he’s a veritable bottomless font of fodder for pundits (well…for those pundits, at least, who aren’t already in the tank for the guy—which largely excludes the mythical “mainstream media” sources that don’t very accurately reflect mainstream thinking). As is common with megalomaniacs, he feels a need to personally control everything and avoid accountability for anything (though he seems not at all averse to claiming credit when it’s politically advantageous to do so)—which again casts doubt on Holder’s role in deciding where to hold the 9/11 trials; it’s clearly out of character for him to leave such a decision to anyone else—but very much typical of him to shift the blame to his underling in the event the whole plan might go south…which it obviously did.

The only mystery is how such a band of seasoned political pros (which they are—no matter how vigorously some insist that they’re “outsiders” unsullied by typical D.C. politics) could prove so inept. There’s nothing artful about them, no deft touch; they need their supermajorities and sheer brute power to get anything done. Far removed from the art of consensus-building, their over-reliance on bribery, bullying, and brow-beating betray their shortcomings.

It’s no mystery how they came to power—and in that reason one finds the rationale for Pelosi’s empty-headed pronouncement. Voters did buy a pig in the poke when they elected Obama; un-vetted, shrouded in secrecy, he nonetheless won. Queen Nancy apparently figures that since the electorate bought one mystery pig, they’ll quietly accept another.

In other words…since we were already left holding the bag once, we won’t object to a repeat performance.

All of which, ironically, brings an odd happiness to bloggers; we’re never at a loss for ideas, these days.